CIHM 
Microfiche 
Series 
(IVIonographs) 


ICIVIH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographies) 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Wi«']«%^m..¥ij 


'^s^tfifwynw^r.^Yiw 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best  original 
copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibliographically  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 

0   Coloured  covers  / 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I   Covers  damaged  / 


Couverture  endommag6e 


□   Covers  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  peliicul^e 

Cover  title  missing  /  Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

I I   Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  g6ographiques  en  couleur 

□   Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

□    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations  / 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material  / 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Only  edition  available  / 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion  along 
interior  margin  /  La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de 
I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge 
int^rieure. 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restorations  may  appear 
within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have  been 
omitted  from  filming  /  Use  peut  que  certaines  pages 
blanches  ajout^es  lors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texte,  mais,  lorsque  cela  ^tait 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  6\6  film^es. 

Additional  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires: 


D 
D 
D 


D 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
6\6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire qui  sont  peut-§tre  uniques  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier  une  image  reproduite, 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  modification  dans  la  m^tho- 
de  normale  de  filmage  sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 

I      I   Coloured  pages  /  Pages  de  couleur 

I I   Pages  damaged  /  Pages  endommag6es 


D 

Q 
D 

a 

D 
D 

n 


n 


Pages  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pellicul^es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed  / 
Pages  d^olor^es,  tachet^es  ou  piqu^es 

Pages  detached  /  Pages  d^tach^es 

Showthrough  /  Transparence 

Quality  of  print  varies  / 
Quality  in^gale  de  {'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material  / 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata  slips, 
tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  totalement  ou 
partiellement  obscurcles  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une 
pelure,  etc.,  ont  6X6  film^es  k  nouveau  de  fagon  k 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 

Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
discolourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant  ayant  des 
colorations  variables  ou  des  decolorations  sont 
film^es  deux  fois  atin  d'obtenir  la  meilleure  image 
possible. 


D 


This  item  \%  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  laelow  / 

Ce  document  est  filrn^  au  taux  de  rMuction  indiqui  ci-dessous. 


lOx 

14x 

18x 

22x 

26x 

30x 

V 

12x 


16x 


20x 


aix 


28x 


32x 


iiiu%?>i^v^?:f'Wi'ru<. 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thankt 
to  the  generosity  of: 


L'exempiaire  film*  fut  reprodult  grice  it  la 
ginArositi  de: 


Univtreitd  da  Montreal 


Univartiti  da  Montriai 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  At*  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nettetA  de  l'exempiaire  filmA,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimte  sont  filmAs  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustrntion,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autre*  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  fiimte  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  quf  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suiv&nts  apparaftra  sur  la 
dernlAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  -^  signif le  "A  SUIVRE".  le 
symboie  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  Atre 
filmAs  A  des  taux  de  reduction  diff6rents. 
Lor*que  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichi,  il  est  film6  d  partir 
de  Tangle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

^^^ 


iT^^^^^M^IWf^- 


^r*fur^^^*5^3r 


-It 


f>?Mvr 


TFM] 


MICROCOPY   RESOLUTION   TEST  CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


iiiii^ 

2.2 
2.0 


1.8 


^  /APPLIED  INA/1GE     Ir 

^^  1653   East    Main   Street 

S^S  Rochester.   New  Vork        14609       UjA 

'■^  (716)   «82  -  0300  -  Phone 

^S  (716)    288  -  5989  -  Fax 


«T9A-x^/lai«k:^aUQn-  «*l 


■ 

Bk" 

p 

^■t'! 

W: 

Si 

'^n     - 

e/  ^Hi 

r'll 

^r 

'p'  ■ 

1 

V-fl 

■ 

\rm 

1 

^M 

■ 

1 

INTLPNATIONAL  CONCILIATION 


INTERNATIONAL  ARBITRATION 

An  Address  Delivered  at  the  Fifth  Annual  Meeting  of  the 

American  Society  of  international  Law,  held 

M  Washington,  April  29,  191 1 


BY 

THE  RT.  HON.  SIR  CHARLES  FITZPATRICK 

Chief  Justice  of  Canada 

AUGUST.  1911  — SPECIAL  BULLETIN 

American  Auocialion  for  International  Conciliatioo 

Sub^^tation  84  (501  West  1 16th  Street) 

New  York  Gty 


fl 


The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Association 
for  International  Conciliation  wish  to  arouse  the 
interest  of  the  American  people  in  the  progress  of 
the  movement  for  promoting  international  peace 
and  relations  of  comity  and  good  fellowship 
between  nations.  To  this  end  they  print  and 
circulate  documents  giving  information  as  to  the 
progress  of  these  movements,  in  order  that 
individual  citizens,  the  newspaper  press,  and 
organizations  of  various  kinds  may  have  readily 
available  accurate  information  on  these  subjects. 

For  the  information  of  those  who  are  not  familiar 
with  the  work  of  the  Association  for  International 
Conciliation,  a  list  of  its  publications  will  be 
found  on  pp.  17  and  18. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  a  pamphlet  (not  in 
the  regular  series)  entitled  "/,  .  'on  between 
Great  Britain  and    the  Unitt;.  .s,"  by  His 

Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons,   v  /ill  be  sent 

postpaid,  on  request. 


INTERNATIONAL  ARBITRATION 

By  the  Right  Homrade  Sir  Charles  Fitzpatrick,  Chief  Justice  of 

Canada^  at  the  Fifth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  American  Society 

of  International  Law,    Washington,  April  2<^,    tgii. 


Mr.  President,  Chairman  and  Gentlemen: 

First   of   all,   I    must   tell    you  quite    frankly  that    I    was 
moved  to  accept  your  kind  invitation  not  merely  that  I  might 
have  the  pleasure  and  honor  of  meeting  the  members  of  the 
American  Society  of  International  Law,  but  more  especially 
in  the  hope  that  I  might  greet  those  gentlemen  whose  acquaint- 
ance I  made  last  year  at  The  Hague,  and  who  are  represented 
in  such  goodly  numbers  here  tonight.     This  is  the  first  oppor- 
tunity I  have  had  to  refer  to  the  work  done  at  The  Hague, 
and  let  me  say  that  if  some  succ'.._  attended  our  efforts,  it 
was  due  not  only  to  the  skill  and  deep  knowledge  displayed  by 
the  counsel  for  the  United  States,  who  materially  assisted  the 
court  in  arriving  at  the  conclusions  :  o  which  it  came,  which  I 
think  are  fairly  satisfactory,  but  above  all,  it  was  due  to  the 
great  learning  and  judicial  temperament  of  your  representa- 
tive, or  rather  I  should  say  of  my  colleague,  Mr.  Justice  Gray, 
I  have  come  here  at  some  personal  inconvenience  to  myself, 
I  confess,  but  all  inconveniences  disappear  in  the  face  of  the 
opportunity  that  is  given  to  me  to  bear  this  testimony  to  my 
colleague  and  to  your  distinguished  counsel,  to  whom  is  due  in 
large  part,  I  repeat,  the  successful  result  of  our  labors. 

During  the  course  of  some  correspondence  I  had  recently 
with  one  of  my  English  friends  on  the  subject  of  the  origin, 
rise  and  growth  of  international  law  and  arbitration,  he  said 
to  me: 

Claims  have  been  made  on  the  part  of  different  places  to  the  honor  of 
being  the  ark  from  which  the  dove  started  on  its  flight,  some  years  ago, 
across  the  waste  of  stormy  waters,  to  find  its  olive  branch.  Paris,  St.  Peters- 
burg  and  The  Hague  have  been  associated  at  different  times,  with  different 


phases  of  the  mnvement,  to  such  an  extent  that  the  claim  of  Wathingtoa  to 
be  its  starting  place  has  been  to  some  degree  overiooicei. 

I  agree  in  part  with  my  English  friend,  and  I  explain  his 
enthusiasm  for  Washington  by  the  fact  that  he  has  lived  for 
some  years  under  the  seductive  influence  of  this  atmosphere. 
For  my  part,  gentlemen,  I  admit  that  Washington  was  the  place 
at  which  the  dove  found  the  olive  brand.,  but  the  ark,  when 
the  dove  started,  was  moored  at  Saratoga  Springs.  Yoi  wi!' 
remember — no  lawyer  can  forget  it — that  in  the  year  1896  Lord 
Russell  of  Killowen,  Chief  Justice  of  England,  addressed  the 
American  Bar  Association,  then  in  session  at  Saratoga,  on  the 
subject  of  international  law  and  arbitration.  After  having,  to 
illustrate  his  theme,  ransacked  the  history  of  all  the  ages  and 
traced  from  century  to  century  the  slow  process  by  which  the 
hopes  of  civilized  peoples  have  crystalized  into  international 
law,  the  great  Chief  Justice  concluded  his  eloquent  appeal  in 
words  which  entitle  him  to  have  his  [name  forever  inseparably 
associated  with  that  of  William  Howard  Taft,  as  one  of  the 
two  great  apostles  of  international  arbitration. 

Parenthetically  I  wish  to  add  that  it  is  to  the  credit  of  the 
much-mrligned  profession  to  which  we  belong  that  that  profes- 
sion should  have  given  to  the  United  States  not  only  the  great 
war  President,  Lincoln,  but  also  the  great  peace  President, 
Taft;  that  our  profession  should  have  given  to  the  United 
States  the  two  great  Secretaries  of  State  who  have  done  so 
much  for  international  law  and  arbitration — Elihu  Root  and 
Philander  C.  Knox. 

The  concluding  words  of  Lord  Russell  at  Saratoga  were 
as  follows: 

Mr.  President,  I  began  by  speaking  of  the  two  great  divisions — 
American  and  British — of  that  English-speaking  race  which  you  and  I 
represent  today,  and  with  one  more  reference  to  them  I  end. 

Who  can  doubt  the  influence  they  possess  for  insuring  the  healthy 
progress  and  the  peace  of  mankind.  But  if  this  influence  is  to  be  fu''  '  ', 
they  must  work  together  in  cordial  friendship,  each  people  in  'ts  own  e 

of  action.  If  they  have  great  power,  they  also  have  great  responsibility. 
No  cause  they  espouse  can  fail;  no  cause  they  oppose  can  triumph.  The 
future  is,  in  large  part,  theirs.  They  have  the  making  of  history  in  the  times 
that  are  to  come.  The  greatest  calamity  that  could  befall  would  be  strife 
which  should  divide  them. 

Let  us  pray  that  th's  shall  never  be.  Let  us  pray  that  t'  y,  always 
self-respecting,  each  in  honor  uplifting  its  own  flag,  safeguardi.-g  its  own 
heritage  of  right  and  respecting  the  rights  of  others,  each  in  its  own  way 
fulfilling  its  high  national  destiny,  shall  yet  woik  in  harmony  for  .e 
progress  and  the  peace  of  the  world. 

4 


<; 


The  seed  sown  in  Saratoga  fell  on  fruitful  soil,  and  in  con- 
sequenc  •  the  great  cause  of  international  arbitratior  has  made 
more  sulid  progress,  not  only  between  your  country  and  mine, 
but  throughout  the  world,  during  the  fifteen  years  which  have 
gone  since  Lord  Russell  spoke  than  in  the  1500  years  which 
went  before.  It  1  >  apparently  always  thus  with  you,  whether 
in  the  world  of  thought  or  of  action,  or  invention;  the  harvest 
which  so  slowly  ripens  elsewhere  seems  to  come,  in  this 
favored  land,  to  maturity  with  a  rush.  Russell  of  Killowen 
was  a  great  judge  and  a  strong  judge,  and  politically  was 
always  in  the  front  of  the  thought  of  his  time.  His  viev- 
upon  the  scope  and  possibililies  of  international  arbitratio 
may  safely  be  taken  as  standing  for  the  high-water  marK 
which  the  cause  had  then  reached.  If  we  turn  now  to  the 
address  at  Saratoga  Springs,  we  find  it  a  lucid  exposition  of 
the  history  of  the  movement;  its  timid  tentative  growth  is 
traced  from  its  beginnings  among  the  Greek  states  of  old, 
through  the  fitful  experiments  in  the  Middle  Ages  down  to  the 
historic  instances  of  modern  times.  When  he  came  to  deal 
with  the  future  of  the  movement,  the  Chief  Justice  seemed  to 
falter.  When  he  looked  forward,  it  was  with  a  dim  and 
doubtful  vision.  Even  his  hope  seemed  to  have  its  limita- 
tions. He  thought  arbitration  an  admirable  method  for 
settling  quarrels  of  peoples,  when  the  subject  matter  in  dis- 
pute was  trivial  in  itself,  or  concerned  with  the  interpretation 
of  an  obscure  treaty,  or  the  finding  of  a  donbtful  frontier. 

It  was  only  fifteen  years  ago,  and  yet  we  fiiui  this  advanced 
thinker,  this  generous  pioneer,  ruling  r  ut  whole  classes  of 
cases  as  too  vital,  too  serious  too  intimately  con  erning  the 
honor  of  the  peoples  to  be  fit  subject  matt<  for  sp  lement  by 
arbitration.  He  enumerated  a  number  »f  qur  ms  s'hich 
led  to  national  differences  and  to  which  arbi  ition  may 
properly  be  applied,  and  that  enumeration  is  i^iatjfe-factory  as 
far  a*  it  goes;  but  what  a  little  way  it  doe-  -•  Wh^n 
we  come  to  note  the  exceptions,  we  fim'  all  th(  uses 

of  quarrels  are  left  outside;  left  to  the  blind  dt  war 

I  quote: 

But  there  are  differences  to  which,  even  as  between  indivi '  ,*s,  arbitra- 
tion is  inapplicable — subjects  which  find  their  counterpart  in  •  affairs  of 
nations.  Men  do  not  arbitrate  where  character  is  at  stake,  c  .vili  ar.y 
self-respecting  nation  readily  arbitrate  on  questions  touching  ;  lationAl 
independence  or  affecting  its  honor. 


When  a  nation  h  heart  is  in  the  quarrel,  when  Its  blood  jsup, 
what  occasion  lor  stride  is  there  which  could  not  be  brought 
under  one  or  other  o«  these  two  exceptions,  '^touching  its 
national  independence,"  or  •'affecting  its  honor." 

Taking  then  Lord  Russell's  address  as  oi.t  Urmtnus  a  qu  - 
as  the  point  at  which  we  may  fix  the  highest  that  was  looked 
for  in  1896,  we  are  at  once  in  a  position  to  measure  the 
progress  that  has  since  been  made.  The  advance  has  been 
not  to  any  haK-way  house,  but  to  the  top  of  the  hill  We 
seem  to  stand  on  the  summit  of  the  mountain  when  we  read 
these  splendid  and  uncompromising  words  spoken  only  last 
year  by  the  President  of  the  United  States.  In  his  address 
to  the  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League  of  New  Yorlr, 
on  the  aad  of  March,  1910,  Mr.  Taft  said: 

Personally  1  do  not  see  any  more  reason  whv  matters  of  natlor  lonor 
should  not  be  referred  to  a  court  of  arbitration  than  matters  of  property  or 
matters  of  national  proprietorship.  I  know  that  is  going  further  than  most 
men  are  willing  to  go  ;  but  I  do  not  see  why  questiors  of  honor  n»«y  not  be 
submitted  to  a  tribunal  supposed  to  'oe  composed  of  men  of  honor,  who 
understand  questions  of  national  honor,  and  then  abide  bv  their  decisions,  as 
well  as  any  other  question  of  difference  arising  between  nations. 

And  Mr  Taft  when  he  used  rhese  words  was  not  playing  with 
a  theory.  He  meant  business.  As  the  Lord  Chancellor  of 
England  recently  said : 

When  a  man  who  holds  an  office  such  as  that  of  President  of  the  United 
Ptates.  which  is  not  surpassed  either  in  dignity  or  power  by  any  Position  in  the 
.  .Id-when  he  said  what  President  Taft  has  said,  he  raises  the  hopes  of 
mankind. 

Let  me  add  that  when  the  President  of  the  United  States 
speaks  he  has  humanity  for  his  audience. 

A  few  months  later,  in  December  of  the  same  year, 
speaking  before  the  American  Society  for  Judicial  Settlement 
of  International  Disputes,  the  President  used  these  memorable 
words: 

If  now  we  can  negotiate  and  put  through  a  positive  agreement  with 
some  great  nation  to  abide  the  adjudication  of  an  international  arbitral  court 
in  every  issue  which  cannot  be  settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter  what  it 
involves,  whether  honor,  tcrritor)'  or  money  we  shall  have  made  a  long  «ep 
orward  by  demonstrating  that  it  is  possible  for  two  nations  at  least  ""tf^lish 
as  between  them  the  same  system  of  due  process  of  law  that  exists  between 
individuals  under  a  government. 


M  k 


It  was  at  once  assumed  that  when  he  spoke  of  some  great 
nation,  Mr.  Taft  had  Great  Britain  in  hi»  mind.  What  was 
confulent  conjecture  then  is  a  certainty  nov  .  Asked  in  the 
House  of  Commons  whethe.  it  were  true  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  had  express-'  itscii  "i'.Hnr  to  negotiate 
a  treal.  under  which  all  disputes  o.  wha'-^  r  nature  between 
the  two  countries  should  be  referred  to  ai  bi^ralion,  and  what 
steps  he  would  take  to  promote  that  object,  the  British 
Premier,  Mr.  Asquith,  made  answer  on  the  7th  day  of  March, 
as  follows: 


■dc:  at  Washington  haf  reported  that  the  United 

platct   proposing  such  a  treat'     and  a  reply  has 

they  may  make  will  of  course    .eet  with  the  most 


His  Majesty's  Amba.*' 
States  (iovernment  cr 
been  sent  that  any  pr;     > 
rympathetic  considera     • 

That  was  good  and  decisive,  but  there  was  better  to  follow. 

On  the  13th  day  of  March,  during  the  debate  on  the  Naval 
Estimates,  the  Foreign  Secretary,  Sir  Edward  Grey,  after 
speaking  in  a  rather  despondent  tone  of  the  growing  burden 
( f  military  and  naval  expenditures,  and  of  the  difficulty  of 
checking  it  under  existing  conditions  of  Europe,  said: 

I  can  conceive  but  one  thing  which  will  really  affect  the  military  and 
naval  expenditure  of  the  world  on  the  wholesale  scale  on  which  it  must  be 
affected  if  there  is  to  be  a  real  and  sure  relief.  You  will  not  get  it  until 
nations  do  what  individuals  have  done— come  to  regard  an  appeal  to  the  law 
as  the  natural  course  for  nations  instead  of  an  appeal  to  force. 

It  was  a  new  note  in  the  discussion,  and  coming  from  the 
resentative  of  tha  government,  at  once  arrested  the  atten- 
•••  1  of  the  House.  In  justification  of  his  belief,  that  the 
aisputes  of  nations  may  some  day  be  decided  by  process  of 
law  and  their  armies  be  onl;'  an  inte,  national  police  force,  Sir 
Edward  Grey  read  to  the  House  the  two  paragraphs  from  the 
speeches  of  Mr.  Taft  which  I  have  just  quoted.  Now  see  how 
the  American  proposal  was  met.  Sir  Edward  Grey  answered 
for  England  thus: 

Supposing  two  of  the  greatest  nations  in  the  world  were  to  make  it 
clear  to  the  whole  world  that  by  an  agreement  of  such  a  character  as  under  no 
circumstances  wt  re  they  going  to  war  again,  I  venture  to  say  that  the  effect 
on  the  world  at  large  of  the  example  would  be  one  that  would  be  bound  to 
have  beneficent  consequences  ....  I  have  spoken  of  that  because  I  do  not 
think  that  a  statement  of  that  kind  put  forward  by  a  man  in  the  position  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  should  go  without  response.  Entering  into  an 
agreement  of  that  kind,  there  would  be  great  risks.  It  would  entail  certain 
risks  for  us  to  refer  everything  to  arbitration,  and  as  the  President  of  the 


United  States  has  said,  we  must  be  prepared  to  take  certain  risks  and  to  make 
some  sacrifice  of  national  pride.  When  an  agreement  of  that  kind,  so  sweep- 
ing as  it  is,  is  proposed  to  us,  we  shall  be  delighted  to  have  such  a  proposal. 
But  I  should  feel  that  it  was  something  so  momentous  and  so  far-reachipj^  m 
its  possible  consequence  that  it  would  require,  not  only  the  signature  of  both 
governments,  but  the  deliberate  and  decided  sanction  of.Pariiament,  and  that, 
I  believe,  would  be  obtained. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  proposed  a 
departure  from  the  usual  constitutional  practice  in  his  state- 
ment that  he  would  submit  a  lew  treaty  to  Parliament.  In  so 
doing,  he  has  invested  the  t.  .  now  under  negotiation  with 
an  importance  which  gives  it  a  different  status  from  that  of 
the  ordinary  international  compact.  He  rightfully  feels  that 
such  treaties  are  compacts  between  peoples,  and  as  such  should 
have  the  popular  sanction,  for,  when  all  is  said  and  done,  the 
burden  of  expenditure  and  the  toil  of  blood  caused  by  war 
must,  in  the  last  resort,  be  levied  on  the  masses  of  the  people. 
If  the  hope  expressed  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  ever  finds  its  fulfill- 
ment, we  shall  indeed  feel  we  are  at  the  summit  of  the  hill  and 
mav  even  look  down  upon  the  possibilities  of  fratricidal  strife 
as  only  a  nightmare  of  the  dreadful  past;  but  though  we  may 
fairly  hope  that  we  a.  -t  now  on  the  eve  of  a  treaty  which  will 
open  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  mankind,  this  position  of 
high  expectancy  has  been  reached  only  by  gradual  steps  and 
not  a  few  setbacks. 

And  let  me  say  that  while  I  was  considering  what  I  should 
say  to  you  tonight,  my  mind  reverted  to  a  treatise  on  war 
which  I  read  many  years  ago,  by  an  eminent  French  philoso- 
pher, in  which  he  says  that  war  cannot  be  banished  from  the 
world ;  that  from  the  days  that  Cain  slew  Abel  down  to  the 
present  time,  at  all  epochs  of  the  world's  history  there  have 
been  at  different  places  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  pools  of 
blood,  wiiich,  as  he  put  it  so  beautifully  in  French,  and  as  I 
am  sure  you  will  understand  it,  I  venture  to  quote  it  in  all  the 
beauty  of  the  original : 

Depuis  le  commencement  du  monde,  la  terre  k  differents  endroits  a  ete 
couverte  de  taches  de  sang  que  ne  peuvent  dessecher  ni  les  vents  avec  leur 
brulante  haleine,  ni  le  soleil  avec  tous  ses  feux, 

that  is,  neither  the  sun  with  all  its  ardor,  nor  the  wind  with  its 
burning  breath,  have  ever  been  able  to  dry  up. 

Let  us  concede  that  war  cannot  be  banished  from  the  face 
of  the  earth;  but  surely,  if  war  can  not  disappear,  the  crime  of 
fratricide  will  disappear. 

8 


A  year  after  the  occasion  of  Lord  Russell's  address  at 
Saratoga  Springs,  a  wide-reaching  treaty  of  arbitration  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  was  successfully  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Olney  on  the  one  side  and  Lord  Pauncefote  on  the 
other.     The  treaty,  though  fully  accepted  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment,  failed   to   secure   ratification  in   the  United  States 
Senate  and  so  came  to  nothing.     At  the  same  time,  its  pro- 
visions are  well  worth  careful  study,  representing  as  they  do 
the  extent  to  which  public  opinion  had  been  educated  in  the 
two  countries  before  The  Hague  Conference  had  been  thought 
of.     The  treaty  is  remarkable  for  the  fact  that  it  stipulated 
that  every  kind  of  dispute  should  come  before  the  arbitrators, 
but  its  weak  point  was  that  in  the  gravest  class  of  cases  the 
decision   was   not   binding  unless  the   court  was   practically 
unanimous.     Mr.  Cleveland,  in  his  letter  transmitting  to  the 
Senate  the  treaty,  which  he  declared  to  represenu  the  conces- 
sions of  each  party  for  the  sake  of  agreement  to  a  general 
scheme,  said  that,  though  the  result  reached  might  not  meet 
the  views  of  the  advocates  of  immediate,  unlimited,  and  irrev- 
ocable  arbitration  for  international   controversies,  neverthe- 
less he  confidently  believed  that  the  treaty  could  not  fail  to  be 
recognized  everywhere  as  being  a  long  step  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, as  embodying  a  practical  working  plan  by  which  disputes 
between  the  two  countries  might  reach  a  peaceful  adjustment 
as  a  matter  of   course  and   ordinary  routine.     Some  of   its 
features  were  admittedly  of  a  tentative  character;   yet   the 
treaty  not  only  made  war  between  England  and  the  United 
States  a  remote   possibility,  but   precluded   those   fears  and 
rumors  of  war  which  are  sometimes  only  less  disastrous  than 
the   dread    reality  itself.     The   President   did   but  echo  the 
opinion  of  both  nations  when  he  went  on  to  declare  that  it  was 
"eminently  fitting"  that  the  first  great  treaty  of  arbitration 
should  be  signed  by  "kindred  peoples  of  the  same  tongue,  and 
peoples  joined  by  the  ties  of  common  tradition,  institutions, 
and  aspirations." 

Finally,  the  President  expressed  his  belief  that  the  example 
thus  set  by  the  English-speaking  peoples  would  not  be  lost 
upon  the  world,  so  that  the  treaty  might  be  the  beginning  of 
a  better  time  for  the  world  and  mark  an  epoch  in  the  history 
of  civilization.  These  were  brave  words  and  well  meant,  but 
the  treaty  failed  to  secure  the  necessary  number  of  votes  in 
the  Senate.     Those  who  were  inclined  to  blame  the  Senate  for 


its  action  may  now  perhaps  exclaim  "O  felix  culpa,"  for  the 
failure  of  the  Olney-Pauncefote  treaty  of  1897  has  left  the  field 
open  for  something  better  in  191 1. 

Two  years  after  this  failure  came  the  First  Hague  Con- 
ference, the  nearest  approach  the  world  has  e*- er  seen  to  a 
common  legislative  assembly  for  all  the  nations.  The  facilities 
and  machinery  it  provided  for  arbitration  have  had  incalculable 
results,  and  every  new  precedent  for  this  peaceful  method  of 
settling  international  quarrels  strengthens  the  chain  by  tending 
to  develop  the  habit  of  looking  to  arbitration  as  the  natural  alter- 
native of  war.  From  first  to  last,  something  like  a  hundred  and 
fifty  disputes  between  nations  have  been  peacefully  adjusted. 
Some  such  as  the  Atlantic  Fisheries  Arbitration  have  involved 
intricate  and  difficult  investigations  with  mixed  questions  of  law 
and  fact,  while  others  have  concerned  questions  in  which  the 
honor  and  dignity  of  nations  have  seemed  to  be  involved.  The 
Dogger  Bank  incident  brought  England  and  Russia  to  the  verge 
of  war,  but  was  peacefully  adjusted  by  the  machinery  originally 
suggested  by  the  proceedings  at  The  Hague.  Even  more  dan- 
gerous as  raising  a  question  about  which  every  nation  is  honor- 
ably sensitive — the  right  of  asylum — was  the  dispute  arising 
at  the  beginning  of  the  present  year  out  of  the  re-arrest  of  an 
Indian  prisoner  on  French  soil  by  the  officer?  of  an  English 
ship.  The  Savarkar  case  was  settled  amicably  by  The  Hague 
Tribunal  in  the  course  of  a  very  few  days. 

If  there  could  be  any  assurance  that  the  Powers  could  be 
relied  upon  to  allow  serious  causes  of  quarrel  to  be  adjudicated 
by  the  permanent  tribunal  of  The  Hague,  created  at  the  second 
conference  in  1907,  there  would  be  little  reason  to  fear  for  the 
world's  peace.  As  matters  stand  today,  the  weak  point  of  the 
system  is  that  no  Power,  or  no  great  Power,  is  bound,  or  even 
pledged  by  its  own  promise,  to  submit  serious  disputes  to 
arbitration.  It  was  hoped  that  the  Second  Hague  Conference 
would  result  in  some  common  and  binding  agreement  in  this 
respect.  Perhaps  the  time  was  not  ripe.  All  that  was  done 
was  to  put  on  record  a  solemn  declaration  in  favor  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration  and  to  renew  the  standing  invitation  to 
individual  Powers  to  enter  into  treaties  with  each  other  in  favor 
of  arbitration.     Article  19  ran: 

Independently  of  existing  general  or  special  treaties,  imposing  the  obli- 
gation to  have  recourse  to  arbitration  on  the  part  of  any  of  the  signatory 
powers,  these  powers  reserve  to  themselves  the  right  to  conclude,  either  before 

10 


I 


I 


the  ratification  of  the  present  convention,  or  subsequent  to  that  date,  new 
aereements,  general  or  special,  with  a  view  of  extending  the  obligation  to 
submit  controversies  to  arbitration,  to  all  cases  which  they  consider  suitable 
for  such  submission. 

And  it  is  along  those  lines  tl.at  for  the  present  we  must 
look  for  signs  of  progress.     The  most  positive  result  of  the 
Second  Hague  Conference  was  a  resolution  accepted  by  all  the 
Powers  not  to   resort  to    hostilities    for  the    enforcement  of 
contractural  debts  without  first  submitting  any  disputed  claim 
to  arbitration.     A  year  before  the  second  conference  at  The 
Hague  a  remarkable  treaty  was  arranged  between  Norway  and 
Sweden.      The  Treaty  of  Karlstad,    perhaps   because  it  was 
between  sister  nations",  has  attracted  less  attention  than  might 
have   been   expected.     None   the    less   it   represents  a  great 
advance  upon  anything  which  had  gone  before.     It  provides 
that   all   disputes   not   touching   the  vital  interests  of  either 
country  should  be  referred  to  the   Hague  court,  and— this  is 
the  important  clause— the  question  whether  a  given  question 
doea  in  fact  affect  the  vital  interests  of  either  country  was  to 
be  decided,  not  by  the  parties  themselves,  but  by  the  court. 
As  the  immediate  result  of  the  second  conference  at  The 
Hague,  a  whole  group  of  treaties  providing  for  arbitration 
under  certain  conditions   was  negotiated.      The  1908  treaty 
between  England  and  the  United  States  belonged  to  a  common 
type— easy   to   arrange   and   of   little    practical    value    when 
arranged.     It  was  a  poor  compensation  for  the  loss  of  the 
Olney-Pauncefote   agreement.       That    at    least   would    have 
secured  arbitration  for  all  possible  causes  of  quarrel  between 
the  two  countries,   even  if  it  did  not  in  all  cases  offer  the 
prospect  of  a  certain  and  binding  decision.     The  treaty  of 
1908  merely  provides  that, 

Differences  which  may  arise  of  a  legal  nature  or  relating  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  treaties  .  .  .  shall  be  referred  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration 
established  at  The  Hague  by  the  Convention  of  the  29th  of  July.  1899,  pro- 
vided, nevertheless,  that  they  do  not  affect  the  vital  interests,  the  independence, 
or  the  honor  of  tht  two  contracting  States. 

The  scope  of  the  second  treaty  had  been  indefinitely  con- 
tracted, and,  except  as  a  sort  of  diplomatic  germ  out  of  which 
something  better  might  develop,  it  was  almost  valueless.  For 
the  difference  between  the  two  treaties  was  vital.  The  first 
renounced  the  immediate  right  to  appeal  to  arms,  and  bound 
both  parties  to  submit  their  quarrels,  whatever  their  nature,  to 

II 


the  decision  of  an  impartial  tribunal.  The  second  arranged  a 
convenient  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes  which 
were  not  grave  enough  for  war.  If  either  party  thought  its 
honor  involved,  the  quarrel  at  once  passed  beyond  the  scope 
of  the  treaty.  Such  a  treaty  though  somberly  acquiesced  in 
at  the  time  as  the  best  that  could  be  got,  was  a  retrograde 
measure.  It  seemed  to  concur  in  the  view  tiiat  arbitration  is 
suitable  for  trivialities,  but  is  out  of  place  when  things  that 
matter  are  in  dispute.  When  in  the  feudal  times  the  growing 
strength  of  the  central  power  slowly  forced  the  robber  barons 
to  surrender  their  right  to  wage  private  wars,  there  was  a  long 
period  in  which  the  right  was  still  claimed  when  questions  of 
boundaries  of  an  estate  were  in  issue.  And  to  a  much  later 
period  th  feudal  lord  and  the  private  gentleman  claimed  to  be 
the  sole  judges  when  honor  was  impugned,  and  successfully 
asserted  their  right  in  such  cases  to  oust  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
courts  of  the  land,  and  to  vindicate  their  cause  with  the  sword. 
Slowly,  but  surely,  those  pretensions  of  a  caste  have  been  worn 
down,  and  under  the  steady  pressure  of  the  common  sense  of 
the  people  the  practice  of  duelling — of  private  fighting  with  the 
intention  to  kill — has  come  to  an  end.  It  is  a  subject  upon 
which  the  nations  are  not  yet  quite  in  line.  In  England,  the 
man  who  killed  his  opponent  in  a  duel  would  be  mob..  infallibly 
hanged;  in  other  countries  duels  are  still  fought,  but  under 
conditions  so  thoughtfully  arranged  that  a  man  may  go  through 
fifty  "mortal  combats"  without  being  the  worse  for  them. 
Under  such  circumstances,  if  a  regrettable  accident  sometimes 
takes  place,  it  is  as  much  as  though  one  of  the  combatants  caught 
his  death  of  cold  through  exposure  to  the  damp  air  of  an  early 
morning  meeting.  For  such  an  unexpected  termination  of  the 
meeting  none  can  be  held  seriously  responsible.  Unfortunately, 
we  have  not  yet  arrived  at  the  same  stage  of  progress  in  the 
management  of  international  quarrels.  We  still  claim  the  right 
of  each  tc  be  the  judge  in  his  own  case  where  honor  or  vital 
interest  is  concerned,  and  when  wars  come  there  is  no  make- 
believe.  Still,  those  who  note  the  growth  of  the  juridical  idea, 
and  take  count  of  the  evolution  which  has  ended  serious  duel- 
ling and  led  men  to  submit  their  honor  and  their  characters  to 
the  decisions  of  judicial  tribunals  in  actions  for  libel  and  slander 
and  in  the  divorce  courts,  will  be  most  certain  that  sooner  or 
later  the  reign  of  law  will  extend  further,  and  in  the  end  control 
collective  as  well  as  private  quarrels  of  whatever  sort. 

12 


No  one  who  has  watched  with  care  the  most  recent  devel- 
opment of  the  arbitration  movement  can  doubt  that  the  trend 
of  opinion,  and  especially  on  this  continent,  is  now  in  favor  of 
tribunals  which  have  the  charactei  and  authority  of  courts  of 
law.  It  may  be  objected  that  strictly  judicial  decisions  imply 
the  sanction  of  force  behind  them,  which  may  compel  obedi- 
ence. That  may  come,  and  some  of  us  may  yet  live  to  see 
an  international  police  force.  But  it  is  relevant  here  to  point 
out  that  so  far  no  case  for  the  necessity  of  such  a  force  has  yet 
been  made  out.  History  is  full  of  the  stories  of  broken  and 
violated  treaties,  but  there  is  happily  no  record  of  the  repudia- 
tion of  an  arbitral  award.  The  pressure  of  the  public  opinion 
of  the  world  is  strong  and  growing  stronger  every  day,  and 
the  risk  of  its  displeasure  will  not  be  lightly  encountered. 

Meanwhile,  I  would  draw  attention  in  illustration  of  what 
I  have  called  the  new  trend  of  the  arbitration  movement  to 
the  treaty  inaugurated  in  May,  1908,  between  the  five  States 
of  Central  America,  Guatemala,  Honduras,  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  and  San  Salvador.  These  five  republics  have  combined 
to  call  into  being  a  court  of  justice  to 

act  as  an  arbitrator  and  last  tribunal  of  appeal  in  all  questions  and  contro- 
versies that  may  arise  among  the  Republics  of  Central  America,  no  matter 
what  these  questions  and  controversies  may  be,  or  what  may  have  given  rise 
to  them,  in  case  the  respective  departments  for  foreign  affairs  should  not  have 
found  a  common  ground  for  an  understanding. 

The  principal  feature  in  the  conception  and  plan  of  the 
Central  American  Court  of  Justice  is  stated  to  be 

that  it  shall  not  at  all  be  a  mere  Commission  of  Arbitration,  but  a  genuine 
judicial  tribunal,  whose  work  shall  oe  to  sift  evidence,  consider  arguments 
and  pronounce  judgment  in  all  questions  that  may  arise  before  it,  acting,  of 
course,  in  accordance  with  rigid  justice  and  equity  and  with  the  principles  of 
international  law. 

The  new  tribunal  was  not  long  in  proving  its  usefulness. 
In  July,  1908,  it  had  before  it  a  case  in  which  Honduras  made 
complaint  that  Guc  nala  and  San  Salvador  were  guilty  of 
unneutral  conduct  .>menting  revolution  within  her  borders. 
Within  six  months  o.  the  first  citation,  judgment  was  given 
and  war  averted. 

The  creators  of  the  Central  American  Court  quote  with 
approval  the  following  statement  made  by  Mr.  Elihu  Root: 

What  we  need  for  the  further  development  of  arbitration  is  the  sub- 
stitution of  judicial  action  for  diplomatic  action,  t'''e  substitution  of  juridical 

13 


sense  of  responsibility  tor  diplomatic  sense  of  responsibility.  We  need  for 
arbitrators,  not  distinguished  public  men  concerned  in  all  the  international 
questions  of  the  day,  but  judges  who  will  be  interested  only  in  the  question 
appearing  upon  the  record  before  them.  Plainly,  this  end  is  to  be  attained  by 
the  establishment  of  a  court  of  permanent  judges,  who  will  have  no  other 
occupation  and  no  other  interest  but  the  exercise  of  the  judicial  faculty  under 
the  sanction  of  that  high  sense  of  responsibility  which  has  made  the  courts  of 
justice  in  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world  the  exponents  of  all  that  is  best 
and  noblfst  in  modem  civilization. 

What  is  the  next  step  to  be  ?  What  form  is  the  pending 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  United  Kingdom  to 
assume  ?  It  is  hardly  t  jo  much  to  say  that  the  time  of  the 
coming  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  depends  on  the  answer;  for  the 
example  of  these  two  peoples  will  lead  the  world.  Certainly 
no  one  will  propose  that  the  Olney-Pauncefote  treaty  should 
be  revived  just  as  it  was.  The  world  has  not  stood  still  dur- 
ing these  fourteen  years,  and  what  was  satisfying  then  would 
not  satisfy  now.  As  we  have  seen,  the  treaty  of  1897  referred 
disputes  to  a  court  composed  of  nationals  whose  numbers 
varied  according  to  the  importance  of  the  matter  in  dispute. 
But  a  decision  was  not  binding,  except  by  consent,  unless  it 
were  arrived  at  in  serious  cases  by  a  majority  of  five  to  one. 
In  the  event  of  failure  to  come  to  a  binding  award,  the  media- 
tion of  a  third  Power  was  to  be  sought  before  *  jstilities.  All 
that  seems  crude  today.  Then  there  was  no  Hague  Tribunal 
which  now  would  naturally  take  the  place  of  a  mediating 
Power.  But  a  better  plan,  and  one  which  finds  great  favor  in 
the  United  States,  is  one  which  involves  the  establishment  of 
a  specially  constituted  arbitral  court,  which  would  have  the 
character  of  an  actual  court  of  law  as  distinguished  from  a 
court  of  arbitration.  In  a  speech  last  June,  Mr.  Knox 
emphasized  the  judicial  as  opposed  to  the  diplomatic  character 
of  the  proposed  court,  which  he  was  confident  would  be 
ultimately  adopted  by  the  nations.  The  United  States,  he 
said,  took  the  advanced  ground  tuat 

the  judgment  of  an  arbitration  court  must  conform  to  the  principles  of 
international  law  and  equity  involved  and  controlling,  and  that  where,  in  its 
opinion  it  is  wholly  clear  and  evident  that  a  decision  essentially  fails  so  to 
conform,  such  decision  should  be  open  to  an  international  judicial  revision. 

Such  a  tribunal,  administering  international  law  and  adjudi- 
cating between  the  peoples,  obviously  represents  an  immense 
extension  of  the  reign  of  law,  and  a  great  advance  upon  the 
methods  of  c-n  ordinary  court  of  arbitration.     The  principle  of 


arbitration  by  a  court  of  nationals  would  find  full  opportunity 
in  the  settlement  of  ordinary  differences,  but  in  case  of  graver 
issues,  or  in  cases  in  which  agreement  could  not  otherwise  be 
reached,  there  would  be  appeal  to  a  permanent  court  of 
arbitral  justice,  which  would  gradually,  by  its  decisions,  con- 
solidate its  own  code  of  international  law  with  its  own  rules  of 
interpretation  and  procedure.  The  establishment  of  such  a 
court  would  be  supplemented  by  special  treaties  binding  the 
contracting  Powers  to  accept  its  decisions  as  final.  It  is 
impossible  not  to  feel  that  Mr.  Taft  has  an  opportunity  of 
opening  a  new  and  happier  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

There  is  one  consideration,  however,  which  must  temper 
our  satisfaction  at  the  prospect  of  such  a  treaty  as  I  have 
supposed.  No  doubt  it  would  practically  eliminate  the  possi- 
bility of  war  between  the  two  countries,  but  the  burden  of  the 
armed  peace  would  remain.  Great  Britain  does  not  build 
ships  against  the  United  States,  nor  is  the  American  Govern- 
ment thinking  of  the  English  fleet  when  drawing  up  its  naval 
program  for  the  year.  Let  the  two  Powers  agree  unreservedly 
to  submit  all  their  differences  to  a  tribunal  of  justice,  and  yet 
having  banished  the  possibility  of  war,  neither  Power  will  feel 
at  liberty  to  lay  off  a  single  ship  either  in  the  Atlantic  or  the 
Pacific.  Both  Powers  must  continue  to  spend  millions  in 
preparations  for  war  by  sea  and  land  just  as  if  no  arbitration 
treaty  had  been  thought  of.  Is  there  any  remedy  for  that 
evil?  I  throw  out  a  seed  of  thought  to  all  the  winds;  it  may 
fall  on  stony  ground,  or  it  may  be  choked  by  thorns,  or  the 
birds  of  the  air  may  devour  it,  but  if  it  prosper  I  think  fair 
fruit  may  come  of  it.  I  am  not  going  to  suggest  any  sort  of 
defensive  alliance.  But  I  hesitate,  and  the  thought  comes  at 
this  mor  nt  t'iat  I  should  be  content  to  say:  The  country 
which  wi  .in  one  century  has  from  relatively  humble  beginnings 
grown  to  be  the  greatest  republic  the  world  has  ever  seen; 
the  people  who  have  not  only  taught  but,  I  may  truthfully 
say,  conquered  nature,  who  have  diverted  rivers,  tunnelled 
mountains,  harnessed  Niagara,  bound  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific  by  many  bands  of  iron  and  are  now  engaged  in  the 
Herculean  task  of  piercing  the  continent,  may  well  be  trusted 
to  find  a  remedy  for  the  evil  which  I  have  mentioned. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  ^ne  word  of  the  Dominion  of 
Canada,  of  that  bumptious  member  of  the  British  family  that 
lives  in  the  house  next  door.     Of  her  I  have  said  nothing,  for 

15 


i6 


COUNCIL  OF  DIRECTION  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  CONQUATION 

LVMAN  ASROTT,  NbW   VoRK, 

ChaRlbs  Francis  Adams,  Boston 

Edwin  A.  Alderman,  Cmarlottrsvillr  Va 

Charles  H.  Ambs,  Bosi.,n,  Mass 

Richard  BARTHOI.DT,  M.  C  ,  St.  Lclis,  Mo. 

Oborgb  Blumbnthal,  New  Vokk 

CLinoN  R.  Bkeckbnridgb,  Fort  Smith,  Arkan:,as 

William  J.  Bryan,   Lincoln,  Nrb.  ■""''AN.as. 

r.  E.  Burton,  Clbviiland,  Ohio. 

Nicholas  Murray   Butlep,  New  York 

Andrew  Carnb(;ie,   New  York 

Edward  Carv,  New  Yoke 

fosEPH  H.  Choate,  New  York. 

Richard  H.  Dana,  Boston.  Mass. 
Arthur  1,.  Dasher,   Macon,  (Ja. 

HoRACB  E.  Dbming,  New  York 

Charles  W.  Kliot,  Cambridge,"  Mass. 

John  W.  Foster,   Washington,  D.  C 

Robert  A.  Franks,  Orange,  N.  J 

John  Arthur  Gkbbne,  New  York. 

Jambs  M.  Greenwood,  Kansas  City.  Mo 

Franklik  H    Head,  Chicago.  Ill 

William  j     Holla.nd,  Pittsburgh.  Pa 

Hamilton  Holt,  New  York. 

David  Starr  Jordan.  STANrcRn  University,  Cau 

J.  H.  Kirkland.   Nashville.  Tenn. 

AooLPH  Lewisohn,  New  York 

Seth  Low.  New  York. 

Clarence  H.   Mackay,  New  York 

Theodore  Marburg,  Baltimore,  Md. 

BRANDEi    Matthews,  ti^.v  York 

Silas  McBee,  New  Vokk. 

Sr"°,?r'\?-  McCLti  LAN.  New  York. 

W.  W    AIoKKow,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Levi  P.  Morton,    New  York 

Stephen  H.  Olin,  Nkw  York. 

A.  V.  V.  Raymond,  Buffalo   N.  Y. 

Ira  Rbmsrn,  Halti.mork,  Md. 

Iambs  Ford  Rhodes,  Boston,  AFass 

Howard  J.  Rogers,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

JElihu  Root,   Washington,  D.  C. 
.  G.  Schur.man.   Ithaca,  N.  Y. 
AMES  Brown  Slott.  Washington,  U.  C. 
SAAC    N.    bF.LIG.MAN,    NeW   YoRK 

F.  J.  V.  Skifk,  Chicago,  III. 

William  M.  Sloa.se,  New  York 

Albert  K.  Smiley,  Lake  Mohonk.  N.  Y. 

James  Spsyer,   New  York. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  Washington,  D.  C 

Mrs.  Mary  Wood  Swift,  Berkeley,  Cal 

George  W.  Taylor,  M.  C.  Demopolis,  Ala. 

ii  v;  Tittman,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W    H.  ToLMAN,  New  York. 

Benjamin  Trueblood,  Washington,  D.  C 

Edward  Tuck,  Paris,  France. 

William  D.  Wheelwright,  Portland,  Ore. 

CONCILIATION  INTERNATIONALE 

119  Rub  OB  LA  Tour,  Paris,  France 

President  Fondateur,  Baron  D'Estournelles  de  Constant 

Member  Hague  Court,  Senator 

Honorary  Presidents  :  Beithelot  and  Leon  Bourgeois,  Senator. 

Secretaries  General:  A.  Metin  and  JuLBS  Rais 

Treasurer:  Albert  Kahn 


to.     Th«  Unlt«l  StalM  and  Germany,  by  Karl  Von  Lcwinikl.     April,  i>i* 

JO.     The  United  Siaiei  and  Mexico,  by  James  Douglat.     May.  1910. 

31.  Tlie  Inicrnaiional  Duly  of  ibc  United  Staiet  and  Gml  Briutn,  by  Edwia 
D.  Mead.    June,  igio. 

Openlne  AddreH  at  the  Uke  Mohonk  Conference  on  Internationi.  Arbi- 
tration, l.y  Nitholaa  .Murray  Butler.    Junr,  i^io. 

ii.  An  Economic  View  ef  War  and  Arbitration,  by  John  B.  Clark,  I.L.I) 
July,  J91... 

33.  Peace  Irrtut  War:  The  Prnident'i  Solution,  by  Andrew  Carnegie. 
Au;  lit,  i,jic. 

34.  Conciliation  throuuh  Commerce  and  Induiciy  in  South  America,  by 
Charlo  M.  I'epper.    September,  i.jio. 

35-  International  Conciliation  in  the  Far  F.a»t :  A  Collection  of  Papern  Upon 
Vari<  u.  Topic*,  by  Rt.  Kcv.  1,.  II.  Roots,  Rev.  Dr.  J.  II.  Oe  Koreit,  Prof.  F..  D. 
Burtcn,  Rev.  Dr.  Gilheit  Reid  and  Hon.  John  W.  Foiter.     October,  iqio. 

i6.  The  Capture  and  De»truction  of  Commerce  at  Sea,  and  Taxation  and 
Armaments,  by  F.  W.  Hirst,     '.'ovembcr,  ijic. 

37.  Selections  from  Speethei  Delivered  in  Congresi  on  the  Naval  Appro- 
pnation  Bills  by  lion.  Theodore  F..  Burjon.     I)ecember,  1910. 

,8.  School  Booki  and  International  Prejudices,  '  y  Albert  Muthnell  Hart. 
January,  1511. 

Mr.  CarneKie's  Letter  to  th:  Trustees  of  the  Carnegi>-  Endowment  for  the 
Advancement  of  I'eace,  and  Resolutions  adopted  by  the  Trustees.   January,  igu. 
39.     Peace  and  the  Professor,  by  Grant  Showerman.     February,  191 1. 

«o.  Woman  and  the  Cause  of  Peace,  by  Baron  d'Estournelles  de  Constant. 
March,  iqii. 

41.  The  Exp^insion  of  Military  Expenditures,  by  Alvin  S.  Johnson.    April, 

42.  The  First  Universal  Kac«  Co-^ress,  by  The  Rt.  Hon.  Lord  Weardale. 
May.  i^ii. 

4>.  Opening  Address  at  the  I..ikc  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbi- 
tration, by  Nicholas  .Murray  Butler.     June,  iqii. 

44.  The  United  Sutes  and  Latin  America  at  the  Hague,  by  William  I.  HuU. 
July,  igii. 

45.  The   Emotional  Price  of  Peace,  by  Professor   Edward    L.  Thorndike. 

August,     IQM. 

46.  Letter  to  the  Apostolic  Delegate  to  the  United  Sutes  of  America,  by  His 
Holiness  Pope  Pius  X.    September,  1911. 

A  small  edition  of  a  monthly  bibliography  of  articles  having  to 
do  with  international  matters  is  also  published  and  distributed  to 
libraries,  magazines  and  newspapers. 


Nicholas  Mi;riiav  Butlbr 
Richard  Baktholdt 
LvMAN  Abbott 


Executive  Committee 
James  Spbybk 
Stsphbn  Hbnrv  Olin 
Sbth  Low 


RoBBRT  A.  Franks 
Gborcb  Blumbnthal 


LIST  OF  PUBUCATIONS 


ii 


Up  to  the  limit  of  the  editions  printed,  any  one  of  the  following 
will  be  sent  postpaid  upon  receipt  of  a  rrquest  addressed  to  the  Sec 
retary  of  the  American  Assfv.tation  for  International  Conciliation, 
Post  Office  Sub-Station  84,  New  York.  N.  Y.  : 

I.  Progr^tm  o(  the  AMociatijn,  Baron  d'F.itournellet  de  Conttant.   April,  i()07. 
».     Rr»uli»of  the  National  Arbitration  and  Peace  Congreti,  by  Andrew  Car- 
negie.   April,  1907. 

3.  A  League  of  Peace,  by  Andrew  Carnegie.     November,  1907. 

4.  The  remits  of  the  Second  H.igiie  Conference,  by  Baron  d'E»lournrlIe»  <ie 
Conitan,  and  Hon.  David  Jayne  Hill.     December,  k^o?, 

5.  The  Work  of  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  by  Jamei  Brown  .Stmi. 
January,  iiyoS. 

6.  Po»iibilitie»  of  Inte"ectual  Co-operation  Between  North  and  South 
America,  by  L.  S.  Kowe.  1,  i/)8. 

7.  America  and  Japan,  by  George  Trumbull  Ijtdd.     June,  1908. 

8.  The  Sanction  of  International  F-aw,  by  Klil.ii  Koot.     July,  1908. 

9.  The  United  Slates  and  France,  by  Barrett  Wendell.     Augusi,  1908. 

10.  The  Approach  of  the  Two  America,  by  Joaquim  Nubuco.     Sept.,  i,;/c.8. 

II.  The  I'nited  States  and  Canada,  Ly  J,  S.  Willison.     October,  1908. 

ra.    The  Policy  of  the  United  Stateiand  Japan  in  the  Far  East.  November.  1908. 

13.  European  Sobriety  in  the  Presence  of  the  Balkan  Crisis,  by  Charles 
Austin  Beard.     December,  1908. 

14.  The  Logic  of  Internationul  Co-operation,  by  F.  W.  Hirst.  January,  1909. 
American  Ignorance  of  Oriental  Languages,  by  J.  H.  DeForrst.  Fcb- 
1909. 

America  and  the  New  Diplomacy,  by  James  Briwn  Scott.    March,  191 
The  Delusion  of  Militarism,  by  Charles  E.  Jefferson.     April,  1909. 
The  Causes  of  War,  by  Elihu  Root.     May,  1909. 
The  United  States  and  China,  by  Wei-ching  Yen.     June,  1909. 
Opening  Address  at  the  Lake  Mohonk  Confucnce  on  International  Arbi- 

tration,  by  Nicholas  Murray  Butler.    July,  1909. 

a.-.     Journalism  and  International  Affairs,  by  Edward  Car>'.     August,  1909. 
aa.     Influence  of  Commerce  in  the  Promotion  of  International  Peace,  by  John 
Ball  Osborne.    September,  1909. 

33.  The  Unit-d  States  and  Spain,  by  Martin  Hume.     October,  1909. 

34.  The  American  Public  School  as  a  Factor  in  International  Conciliation,  by 
Myra  Kelly.     November,  1909. 

25.  Cecil  Rhodes  and  His  Scholars  as  Factors  in  International  Conciliation, 
by  F.  J.  Wylie.     December,  1909. 

a6.    The  East  and  the  West,  by  Seth  Low.    January,  1910. 

37.    The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War,  by  William  James.     February,  1910. 

a8.     International  Unity,  by  Philander  C.  Knox.     March,  1910. 

The  United  States  and  A-'Stralia,  by  Percival  H.  Cole.     March,  1910. 


«5- 
ruary, 

16. 

'T- 
IS. 
19. 
ao. 


i^r^cr, 


